9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the petitioners seek for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the notification issued by the first respondent dated 02.02.2017, initiating Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Non-dyed Polyester Staple Fiber (hereinafter referred as PSF ) from China PR, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. 3.In W.P.No.17927 of 2017, the petitioner association seeks for issuance of writ of mandamus, to issue a direction upon the first respondent /the Designated Authority to proceed to determine its jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Rule 5 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping duty on dumped articles and for determination of injury) Rules 1995, as sought for by them in their letters dated 21.04.2017, 22.04.2017, and 25.04.2017. 4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned counsels appearing for the private respondents submit that W.P.No.17926 of 2017, may be taken up for disposal first and if the same is disposed of, it may not be necessary to consider the prayer sought for in the other two writ petitions. This statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation to the said effect was filed on 21.04.2017. It was submitted that there was no reason to initiate the proceedings and there was misconstruction of the norms of domestic industry. This was followed by another objection dated 22.04.2017, raising lack of jurisdiction to initiate investigation and requested that the issue of jurisdiction should be decided upfront before proceeding further. An application was submitted to the said effect on 25.04.2017 followed by a reminder dated 16.05.2017. It is stated that on 04.06.2017, the petitioner/association along with their counsel met the first respondent at Delhi and submitted that the first respondent was wrong in initiating the proceeding and the issue of jurisdiction has to be decided before any other matter is proceeded with. Since there was no response as decided by the respondent, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking for a direction to decide the question of jurisdiction and by way of abundant caution, questioned the impugned initiation notification. 6.Heard Mr.C.Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Southern India Mills Association, Mr.Rahul Balaj, learned counsel appearing for Lambodhara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces referred to in sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, the domestic industry in relation to the article in question shall be deemed to comprise two or more competitive markets and the producers within each of such market a separate industry, if - (i) the producers within such a market sell all or almost all of their production of the article in question in that market; and (ii) the demand in the market is not in any substantial degree supplied by producers of the said article located elsewhere in the territory; 2 Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause,- (i) producers shall be deemed to be related to exporters or importers only if,- (a) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other; or (b) both of them are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person; or (c) together they directly or indirectly control a third person subject to the condition that are grounds for believing or suspecting that the effect of the relationship is such as to cause the producers to behave differently from non-related producers. (ii) a producer shall be deemed to control another producer when the former is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing either support for or opposition, as the case may be, to the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the designated authority may initiate an investigation suo moto if it is satisfied from the information received from the Commissioner of Customs appointed under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) or from any other source that sufficient evidence exists as to the existence of the circumstances referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (3). (5) The designated authority shall notify the government of the exporting country before proceeding to initiate an investigation. 6. Principles governing investigations.- (1) The designated authority shall, after it has decided to initiate investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of any article, issue a public notice notifying its decision and such public notice shall, inter alia, contain adequate information on the following:- (i) the name of the exporting country or countries and the article involved; (ii) the date of initiation of the investigation; (iii) the basis on which dumping is alleged in the application; (iv) a summary of the factors on which the alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Thailand as proceeded against. Thus, it is submitted that the restrictions containing in Rule 5 of the Anti-Dumping Rules is intended to preempt and ward off possibility of the law being abused by indigenous manufacturer, in order to hike their price to create scarcity and adversely affecting competitiveness of prices of raw materials to industrial user. 11.The above appears to be what has been lingering in the minds of the petitioner/association that they may be put to prejudice if the jurisdictional issue, which was raised by them, is not taken up for consideration. 12.The learned Additional Solicitor General on the other hand would submit that the petitioners themselves have given an application before the Designated Authority requesting that they may be heard in the matter and simultaneously they have moved this Court challenging the initiation notification and therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain these writ petitions. Further, it is submitted that all the issues, which have been raised by the petitioner can be canvassed before the authority and there is a further appeal remedy available under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. Respondents 2 to 4 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Clauses a and b therein. 18.Rule 5 read with Rule 6(1) of the Customs Tariff Rules would show that the Designated Authority shall after it has decided to initiate investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of any article, issue a public notice notifying its decision and such public notice should contain information provided under such rules. The first respondent having already decided such issue and the impugned notification has been issued under Rule 6(1) of the Custom Tariff Rules, a direction should be issued to the first respondent to decide the issue of its jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. 19.In this regard, reference was made to the decisions in the case of K.Sagar, Managing Director, Kiran Chit Fund vs. A.Bal Reddy and another reported in (2008) 7 SCC 166 and in the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India and another reported in (2012) 6 SCC 757. 20.In my considered view, the apprehension of the petitioner/Association appears to be without any basis. This is so because of the manner in which Rule 12 of the Customs Tariff Rules is worded. In terms of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Customs Tariff Rules, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value and margin of dumping. Consideration should be relevant to the injury determination and to decide as to whether any of such producers are related to the exporters or the importers. Thus, the objections raised by the petitioners are required to be considered by the first respondent while deciding the matter in furtherance to Rule 6 of the Customs Tariff Rules. 22.In Vodafone International Holdings BV (supra), the issue was as to whether the jurisdictional issue may be determined by the authority concerned as a preliminary issue. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court pointed out that the petitioners are entitled to question the decision of the authority on preliminary issue before the High Court in the event, the same is against it. 23.In Kiran Chit Fund (supra), the jurisdiction of the said forum was called in question and in the factual background, the Hon ble Supreme Court directed that the issue relating to jurisdiction has to be decided by the forum first. Thus, the Courts have taken such a view depending upon the facts and circumstances, more particularly, on the enactment on which the issue revolves. Thus, it may not be necessary that juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
